rsc_get_clusters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 20/100 limit bounds, truncation semantics, and the fact that filters are applied server-side. No output schema exists, and the description explains the return payload, so disclosure is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filters, fields, args, and returns in clearly labeled blocks; every section earns its place. The bulleted identity/status/capacity layout is somewhat verbose but justified given there is no output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, when to use, every argument's semantics and allowed values, and the return envelope including truncation — more than sufficient for a 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and minimal annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it supplies the allowed status values (Connected/Disconnected/Initializing), the cluster_type enumeration (Cloud, ExoCompute, OnPrem, Polaris, Robo, Unknown), the limit default and max, and clarifies name_contains is a server-side name filter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Rubrik CDM clusters registered in RSC') and immediately frames the scope with the inventory domains it covers, distinguishing it from siblings like rsc_get_workloads or rsc_get_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly enumerates the questions this tool answers (inventory, connection status, version, capacity, runway, sync/node health, hardware warnings), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name when-not-to-use or point to an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.